Jump to content

backupsidekick

Members
  • Content Count

    169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by backupsidekick

  1. Another way that the end game could be changed is this: time is called, active player is player A, completes their turn. If the game does not end, player B gets to play out their turn. If the game does not end at the conclusion of player B's turn, player A is allowed to forge a key if possible, if this is their 3rd key, the game ends, if not, player B then gets to forge a key if possible. The simple change of having players forge their last keys in turn order prevents the player B situation you were describing where they no longer have any pressure to stop player A, just simply out generate them. I agree, knowing that your last turn, if you are tied for keys, you don't have to stop the other player, you just have to have more aember to win. Player B gets a completely different win opportunity than player A gets since if both players are tied for keys, player B ONLY has to have more aember. Player A had to stop player B from forging, while still having the most aember. (except for Shadows) most houses EITHER control aember, or generate aember.
  2. So my story for Silverther, Navigator of the Stadium won the Archon Short Story contest and I was sent 2 decks. One of the deck was none other than Silverther's Cousin: J. U. Airor of the Cautious Colosseum. Now, as many of you may, or may not know, the Silverther's and the Airor's have been at arms ever since the whole pro-archon events back in 1212 XG, the year of our great lord Xylio the Great. You see, there was a bid for where the games would be held, Silverther Stadium, or Airor Colosseum. In the end, of course, the Silverther's won out the bid, with a much larger facility with better foods, cuisine is always something people miss when they are novices in the industry. Either way, thank you @WonderWAAAGH for holding this competition. Below are the deck lists for the 2 decks that were sent to me. https://www.keyforgegame.com/deck-details/f342bf6d-cdec-41af-a232-2fa71838b671 https://www.keyforgegame.com/deck-details/df3a7f28-c261-45bb-9321-51cf5d1830d7
  3. Is it a bad time to bring up the siege unit champion upgrade card for Lord Vulun'thul and all of our excitement for that unit?
  4. Shadows steals, the easiest and most effective way to stop an opponent from forging a key, and Dis disrupts the game. The third house is choice of preference, I like the fun things Mars does, some people will prefer big creatures in Brobnar, or card draw and hand size of logos, Untamed does a great job at aember generation. No one likes Sanctum though.
  5. Equal terms is both players starting with 6 cards. First player does this after playing their first card on, basically, turn 0 since it's not a full turn. If first player does not mulligan, then their hand state doesn't change from the first card they play, to their first full turn, basically they are playing part of their hand, then the rest of it on their first real turn. When player 1 starts with 1 chain, they drop it when they draw cards, and even if they don't mulligan they will then draw new cards into their hand at the end of their first turn. That doesn't normally happen on turn 1, normally you play the rest of your cards on your next turn. Due to drawing that card at the end of the first turn of first player, the only hamper of chain 1 is limiting the very first card to a selection of 6 cards instead of 7, but that isn't a major handicap in any way, and has no lasting result. Player 2 starting with 1 chain limits the first full play to a selection of only 5 cards which is a bigger impact, or 4 cards if they mulligan. So 1 chain for player 2 is much worse than 1 chain on player 1. With 2 chains, player 1 will drop both of them before they take their first full turn because of their hand size being reduced by the first chain below the draw threshold. This isn't normal without taking a mulligan for first player to be below the draw threshold so drawing on turn one will only happen about 50% of the time, maybe less. Since you would draw (regardless of if chains let you or not) you will drop a second chain before taking your first full turn, meaning at the end of player 1's first full turn they will have a full hand of cards. Player 2 will start with 1 less card, and still have 1 less card going all the way into their second full turn with 2 chains. Player 1 needs at least 1 more chain than player two for the chains to have equal impact on the game in regards to impact to full turns, OR (and this is my personal thought) player 1 doesn't drop a chain at the end of turn 1, since it's not a full turn. I know this will never be official, but I think it would make chains more reasonable. I know there is reason to say I am wrong, this is just the opinion the other players in my store came to in regards to chains and player 1.
  6. I had the same thoughts about speeding up adaptive and came up with a simple solution for 1 game rounds that includes chain bidding in a simplified format.
  7. We tried this format at our local store last night and found that this was a VERY fun method of play. There will need to be some tweaks, but it's due to the chains system rather than the format. When we ran the format last night we had 7 chains to bid each round and 2 chains were added as a winning deck. Once both players picked their deck, we reduced chains to the lowest value, so if I picked a deck with 7 chains and my opponent chose a deck with 4, My opponent would actually start with 0 chains, and I would start with 3. The issues we had were that chains didn't do very much in the way of disrupting the game, and it's because of how many chains you shed by the end of the first turn, and what I feel is first player advantage when it comes to shedding chains. When you start the game, if you have chains you draw one less card and shed a chain before the game begins. When you take your first turn, you also shed another chain, so the first 2 chains are gone at the end of turn one. For all formats with chain bidding, this is crucial to know. First player sheds a chain when they draw their cards, meaning they draw 6 cards instead of 7. Then, when they play their one card, SINCE THEY ARE NOW BELOW 6 CARDS, THEY SHED A SECOND CHAIN. The first player has shed 3 chains by the end of their first full turn, and this is a HUGE BENEFIT! Typically the only way a player will draw a card on their very first turn as first player is if they mulligan, but since their hand size is reduced by chains they are guaranteed to draw cards after their first play which means they will shed a second chain during this turn. I personally feel that knowing who will go first would have an impact on how many chains I would bid because of this interaction with chains and the first turn rule. After our first play, all players enjoyed this format thoroughly and we will be using this as a regular format. We are going to continue to tweak the rules of this format to work for our group, but bidding chains was not difficult when each player was limited to how many chains to bid. There were a lot of 3/4 bids, but there were some 5/2 bids, and higher when an opponent simply knew one deck would be stronger against their own decks, but all bidding took less than 1 minute to complete and then get playing. All players enjoyed the added strategy of both bidding on opponent's decks, and then picking which deck to play based on how many chains they would begin with, but all added rules only increased the enjoyment of the format. What we are going to try the next time we use this format is instead of reducing chains at the beginning of the game (7 chains against 5 reduces to 2 chains against 0), we are simply going to say that whatever chains your deck has on it will start with that many. I have attached a PDF for TO's to use in their events, very basic explanation of rules on the sheet, and 2 circles that will need to be filled in for house rules on how many chains to bid and how many chains will be awarded for a win with a certain deck. I will continue to update this file going forward as this is only version 1.1, and tongue in cheek, it's named freemium after the whole loot box fun we've had here in the forums. Please, if you have recommendations for tweaking the format, or this sheet, let me know, otherwise enjoy!
  8. I have been trying to modify the third turn adaptive format so that chains are bid at the beginning of the first game, rather than the third game. Here has been my thought process and where I am currently and I would like community feedback on specific numbers and how it might/might not work. TLDR at bottom. First, if chains are bid at the beginning of the round, you can play single game rounds instead of three game rounds. This will help players experience more decks, and not spend as long battling between the same two decks, both of which I personally view as a positive. This would be the first change to adaptive, and will completely veer away from adaptive format, so I would call this format something like pay to play, which is a stupid name so, whatever someone come up with a better name. Second, if chains are bid at the beginning of the round, I think casual players will suffer the most due to inexperience with new decks. For instance, if the round begins and both players get to look at the decks and then bid for which deck is more powerful, my opponent may think my deck is more powerful, I might think theirs is, my opponent bids 3 chains to use my deck, I bid 2 chains to play their deck and then what? What if the deck should have 12 chains, and mine none? Who decides, and isn't this all speculative and opinionated anyway? This is why I think simplifying the chain bidding process for this format to a specific chain limit and also including two decks in the setup should be used for this format. So, how would this work: each player brings 2 decks to the event and is given a set number of chains to place on your opponent’s decks each round. Let’s use 7 chains as an example. I look at both of my opponents decks and divide the 7 chains I am allowed between the two decks however I see fit. Could be balanced with 3 and 4, or all 7 chains on 1 deck, however I personally feel my chains will be best spent, and my opponent does the same thing. Once we have both decided which deck we will pay to play, we reduce our chains to the lowest number possible (if my opponent's deck has 3 chains and my deck has 5, my opponent is reduced to 0 chains to start, and I start with 2. The point isn’t to have everyone starting with chains but to balance the game). These chains will NOT carry over from round to round. Now, why not bring a deck you love and a deck that you hate and just plan on playing the strong deck with max chains, and you spread the chains you are given each round to minimize the impact? Starting with 3-4 chains isn’t horrible if you have an amazing deck. To solve this dilemma I came up with the following solution: Each round that you win, the winning deck gets a set number of additional chains to encourage playing the other deck. My original thought is that it gets 1-2 chains. Swiss seating will mean that winning decks will play against winning decks so the additional chains won’t severely hamper the winners, but will make them think twice about bringing one strong and one weak deck but rather trying to balance their decks. If you keep playing the same deck over and over again, by the 4th round you could have 4-8 chains on the winning deck, and your opponent could place an additional 7 chains on the same deck. 0 chains on one deck, or as many as 15 on the other will make you think twice about what you are playing. I have also considered that these chains will fall off each round that you don’t use the deck, but it might be hard to keep track of, so lower number of permanent chains might be better than a high number of chains that drop off later. I think chain bidding is a great balancing concept, but could be very hard to incorporate without some easy parameters. Adaptive gives enough information about both decks to allow the players to bid appropriately, but it takes so long and rushes the best round (in my opinion). The goal of this format is to limit rounds to 1 game (goal met), make bidding chains easy for all players (goal met), and allow players the actual power to impact a powerful deck appropriately (goal met). The most problematic part of this format is the very first round if someone has a powerful deck, as that one will only have 3-4 chains maximum to start if the player is wise. TLDR; new format, bring 2 decks, place a set number of chains (community input appreciated) on each of your opponent's decks that drop off at the end of the round, winning deck gets chains added to the deck to encourage players to use/bring two good decks rather than 1 powerful deck and a throwaway deck.
  9. Here's what I gather from the post, and I completely agree that Adaptive is flawed in its current state: The part that makes adaptive fun is you get to find out if it is the player or the deck that is better. If one player wins two games, they are the better (or luckier) player. If after two games each player has a win, that deck is most likely a stronger deck (or again lucky, but luck can't really be mitigated). The issue is the third game in this format. Single game rounds are 35 minutes when you know the deck. Sealed rounds are 45 minutes each meaning it is expected to take longer to play a deck you don't know. By this math the adaptive rounds should be 2 hours 5 minutes, not 90 minutes. Only getting to play against 2 opponents, which doesn't really give a good tournament, is 4 hours, for a card game. I play in the middle of the week regularly so 4 hours is a long commitment to basically be playing twice. Yes I will have the opportunity to get in 4-6 games, but the reality is that I've seen only 3 decks, including my own, in that time. What I see as the bigger problem, is the chains are introduced in the final game, which is regularly going to be rushed and the round will be ended in the middle of the game. If there is a deck that is powerful, and you get to the game where you have bid really high chains to be able to play the powerful deck, it is really defeating to win by current amber state, or lose for that matter. The final game that is supposed to be the definitive answer to who is the better player, is rushed to an end. In bigger tournaments, where it is expected I will play all day, I think this is a great format, but the time needs to be addressed so the third game isn't rushed. Maybe play each game in a set of 35 minutes so that the final round always has 35 minutes available to play.
  10. If you use the KeyForge website, the name Eriksson always has Brobnar as one of the houses, and if we are trying to be specific, I believe the one card in Brobnar that all of the decks with Eriksson in the name have in common is "Warsong" card 018. However, strangely enough, I can't find a correlation with the word "Raider".
  11. Silverther staggered through the entry way, the sun blinding as it fell through the open skylight, the cheers of the crowd deafening and pounding in his ears. The last Brob lite was probably the one that did him in. What was he to do, though? Last night was a raucous going away part for Tabris, the brews were flowing and everyone was having a grand time, but he had tickets to attend the games today and he wasn't going to pass these great seats for a little hangover. That little hangover, turned out to be a little bit of a problem, nothing the hair of the dog couldn't handle, so Silverther started early that morning with some brews he got from Charette hoping that would relieve some of the tension, but to no avail. The vendor served him his 5th, or 9th Brob lite, and by now the stadium was spinning. Fortunately this gave the positive impact of relieving the pounding in his brains turning his wise mind into Logos test goo. "pard'm me finm spur, bud, cerd you pont me in'd derectn of 103? I semd loss my place 'n I ned go back to'm seat". Silverther couldn't be bothered by the rudeness of this silent amigo, regardless of the fact that it was an easily recognizable cutout of Noddy, he gave it a hard shove as he walked away. "Fine, 'f you be no hep, then I'fin my way onmyown" Silverther wandered down one aisle, and then the next. He found the restroom, fortunately just before it was too late, unfortunately it was also the concessions stand and he had defiled all of the remaining assorted cooked meats. At one point, one of the attendees of the game pointed out that Silverther was breaking the rules. Although he had tried his best to make sure he wasn’t bothering anyone, he still missed the sign on the entry that stated that all guests need to adhere to a strict 500-1000 word minimum and maximum so as not to be escorted outside. Silverther paid the sign no attention, and before the day was up he was just short of the word count by nearly 200 words! Although this wouldn’t have been much of a problem under normal circumstances, this was a championship game, and the stakes were much higher. When someone pointed out to him that he was far too short on words, he decided that he would correct his actions so that he could enjoy the game further, if he could ever locate his seats. “Thak you s’much mr. Awyn, I ha no idea I wuz breakin’ a rules, an I cood ‘ve missed out on this great fun time. I din mean to ruin anyons day, jus tryin a have good time. You tryin have good time too?” Mr Awyn moved along. He meant no harm, he simply wanted everyone to enjoy their time at the championship, and everyone to have fair access. Mr. Awyn was a good man, or person, or however Awyn identified theirself. Alas he was unable to identify his seats before the game ended. When the security found him passed out cuddling one of the giant stuffed Niffle apes in the merchandise booth they kicked him out and gave him his now prominently known name: "Silverther, the Navigator of the Stadium"
  12. I think the secondary market will help support this game, and the idea of local trading. If you don't get the 3 houses you want, trade with someone that wants the houses you have. I'm guessing online retailers will have partially opened decks where maybe you pay $15, but you get to choose the 3 houses for your deck. True, this eliminates the true unknown factor of the game, but if you really want to own a deck you choose, there will be options besides just strictly blind buying. your second point of playing a crappy deck, maybe? Or maybe they will design more middle of the road cards so there isn't huge swings in card balance? I haven't seen all 350+ cards yet so I don't think its fair to assume there will be tons of crap cards. the third point, you're also assuming that there will be massively powerful cards, instead of middle of the road cards. Since this game isn't about deck building, there is no need to push the collectibility of the game and encourage players to buy tons of cards to get the really good ones. I'm guessing part of the balance issues in collectible games is self inflicted by the manufacturers knowing they want better cards that players have to chase and spend more money on. As far as having a deck banned... isn't that what you wanted from your third point? I don't know if you're concerned about a deck being banned or not banned. But lets go with you thinking both will happen and both are bad, I really think that if the manufacturer went to the length of banning an entire deck, it would have to be incredibly broken to the point that no errata could fix it. I can't possibly fathom a situation where no one in game production had the comment "what if there is a player that really likes there deck and they learn how to play it well and win a bunch of tournaments?" and now their system is just going to auto ban anyone who wins. Since these decks have a custom hero on the back of the deck, what if they create some hall of heroes where any deck that has won a significant number of tournaments enters in the hall, gets retired, and the player gets honor for their deck? Would it be too ridiculous if the tournaments prizes were a new deck since your deck might face retirement? And again, this is worst case scenario of FFG just banning decks that win instead of reviewing the deck contents to see if the card combo is creating some unfair balance in the game that they need to tweak. Your last comment, if all I have to do is spend $10 for ALL OF THE PLAYERS OF THE GAME to know that MY DECK IS AMAZING AND RECEIVED BAN STATUS, yeah totally worth it. I'm guessing, and this is a wild guess, that if FFG went to the length to ban the entire deck and say that it is illegal in its entirety you can never again play it, first maybe they'd send another deck or compensate in another way. The reality is that could you imagine the stock nightmare of stores receiving semi-blind boxes where the outside showed which of the 3 houses were included? There are 35 different boxes if there is a set order for the houses (mars always displays to the left of all other houses...) and there would be 210 different boxes if the order in which they display is random (Mars can appear to the left or right or Dis, etc). Store's displays would be getting messed up, if there was a more popular house then those would sell before the others and the store would sit on boxes of houses that were less favorable. Stores would try to order specific houses that were low stock. Players would get upset if their local store didn't get the houses they wanted. The printing for the boxes themselves would all be unique and increase production costs. Total blind boxes is absolutely in the favor of the store. If you really want to play this game and you really want to get the houses you prefer, I'd recommend just picking up a deck on the secondary market. It's hard to believe that this game would be the only competitive game with absolutely no secondary market. But really, if you want specific cards from Magic or any other CCG, you have to either buy a ton of blind boxes or look online for someone selling individual cards, this would be no different.
  13. While looking at the new Homebrew Dwarves, I considered the following, what does "ignored" mean in relationship to "revealed"? If I reveal a modifier that does not match the stance of the action, it is "ignored" which is different than cancelled which according to the rules reference 15.1 "A game effect cannot be resolved if it is triggered from an action of modifier that is canceled", but there is no mention of "ignored" as for triggering additional game effects. Point is, if a modifier is ignored, is it still revealed for purposes of further game interactions? It isn't cancelled, and obviously ignored means you don't perform the given modifier, but is it still considered revealed? For instance, File leader allows you to perform an attack if your command tool is revealed with an attack showing. If the wraiths had their modifier set for the red attack (and were able to take the upgrade), and an initiative 3 blue march, would the be able to perform the attack if someone collided with them later, or does "ignored" not simply mean not taken, but also cancelled as well?
  14. One option for to balance the army is to price the units higher than the other teams... like Th'Uk Tar that's currently priced at $35... I mean, I don't think that's the best way to balance, but hey. It's a start.
  15. "Spined Threshers only After each Command Phase you may perform a speed-1 {shift} sideways, even if this card is exhausted." I've heard people on the forum believing this can be used to disengage from a unit. Considering Rules reference states "to disengage, the unit must perform the shirt in the direction directly opposite of it's contacted edge for that engagement." I would assume the only way you could use this shift to disengage would be if you are engaged on the side, aka flanked. If your front is engaged at all, you can't use this to disengage. and using this shift to reposition would result int he same contacted edges due to 73.3. Am I missing something that I should consider before I encounter some Scuttling Threshers?
  16. Which is why lancers should be able to blight an engaged unit. That's my whole point on reworking the lancers and my only concern. The skill on the card ends up being rarely used due to how often the target you want to blight ends up being engaged. If you're hoping for using blight as mortal wounds, it doesn't matter how many lancers you have in the unit, each surge is still just one mortal wound. I feel the majority of the synergy comes in the form of units having major flaws. Ardus has no surge ability, so he has to have another unit to steal from. Carrion Lancers can't blight engaged units so they have to rely on archers. Archers can't spend blight, so they have to rely on carrion lancers. That's not synergy, that's having units with half of an actual ability. There aren't any other units in the game that require something else in order to function. Waiqar's whole theme is, you need all of the legs to make a complete table so if your opponent takes out a single leg you're screwed. The other factions are able to trust each unit to continue to function well until the end of the game, Waiqar doesn't have that luxury. It's a house of cards. Mortal wounds are a cool concept, but not against units with 1 defense. This conversation started with "carrion Lancers can engage a 50 point unit to stop them" which is more likely a star of infantry rather than lone rune golems. Mortal strikes against infantry are a waste. All of the other siege units do well against infantry as well as heroes or other siege units, and if the unit doesn't have blight, but you really need to use your carrion lancer to stop it,the lancer is just a suicide most of the time. Without blight, the surge's are useless. The rune golems don't roll surges often, 1/8 of the time, the Scions can use the surges for a stun token without need of anything else, and the Spined Threshers doles out panic tokens AND uses those panic tokens for rerolls. Point is the mortal strikes don't work well against all units, only less than half will seriously be impacted, you have to put the blight on and keep it on for the strikes to trigger. Yes the carrion lancer can move around, but eventually it has to engage someone, and when it does you have to make sure all of the stars align, not just with where the unit is, but what the unit is, and what timing the unit moves/engages. Without the carrion lancer blighting engaged units, they rely on archers. If the archers die, the carrion lancer value declines dramatically. Since the archers attacking the unit the carrion lancer is engaged with triggers the panic test, it's not free. Yes the Carrion Lancer has some chances to deal damage, but there are so many contingencies, it's just not reliable like the other siege units. I understand the Rune Golem can be unreliable with rolls, but they also (on their OWN) have the potential to deal a lot of damage. The Carrion Lancer HAS to have another unit nearby and attacking the same unit for the same potential power, and that means that unit is more expensive due to the cost of support to function.
  17. First, I don't have 6 lancers, maybe I just need to suck it up and buy another expansion... we'll see. Previously I've had a grand total of 4, so my experience with 6 is non-existent. So there's that point I have to concede. I personally have never killed a rune golem with a carrion lancer, and I played many many games, primarily against Daqan players. The RBB dice from the lancer has a total of 4 hits on a perfect roll (5 with the dialed hit), and since the Rune Golem requires at least 4 hits, without defense mods, to break armor, the rolls are unforgiving. The players I have played against typically don't just run a Rune Golem off by itself, they use them as buffers as well, so while I am using my archers to attack the rune golem, I have to deal with the panic test on the carrion lancer, plus if there are oathsworn closing in, or, in the past the Rune Golems would protect a range striking Kari, I have to worry about Kari decimating the archers. I think there's room to improve on my carrion lancer play, but dumping 70+ points into a 3x2 single unit is a hard pill to swallow for the carrion lancer star. Plus, their skill which is part of their higher cost, is completely wasted due to instead of having 6 units blighting at range, you get 1 blight. Plus if you want any lancers in an infantry star, you now need 7+. Jees, +$100 in worms? My father would be so disappointed. I see what you did there. Honestly, sometimes that what makes this game frustrating. If I dial in a initiative 3 intercept, I know I'm losing a turn with my unit, IF I don't, then I know I'm giving my opponent the higher ground of choosing their attack. If I was the opponent, I would absolutely dial in a charge and force the carrion lancer to make a subpar initiative 3 movement or get hit. You KNOW you get first attack next round, why not force them to take the sacrifice? Forcing your opponent to sacrifice their unit, or lose their unit before they do anything with it is SO much more powerful. What do you stand to lose by dialing in the charge? Either way youdon't get hit this round, but you have the added advantage of possibly getting a free attack this round. Win Win. In this situation, you know the carrion lancer is coming at initiative 3 because otherwise they lose. Unless it's a flank possibility and you can't charge in which case, that was never an option anyway, so the mind game of the carrion lancer is still a non-issue. I get the idea though, of intercepting a unit before it hits something else, but you're isolating that single unit on the battle field, what else is around it though? Anyone could setup a perfect situation and say "in this instance the carrion lancer is perfect", but in the same regard, the rune golem can move 4 at initiative 4, and with the white reform, he can make sure the prior turn that he is alligned perfectly for that interception. PLUS, that initiative 4, speed 4 movement can be a charge, so the rune golem gets an attack where the lancer doesn't. It's food for thought.
  18. First off, still, this is MY opinion, so as I counter each person, please don't take it personally, I'm giving my opinion, I'm grateful for healthy debate. I haven't played many opponents who aren't aware of an oncoming Lancer, they see it coming and they dial in an attack. You can only surprise so many players before they start seeing it coming. Based on your description, would you gladly take a 50 point unit that gets a FREE attack in an attempt to kill off 15 points worth of units without worry of getting hit? Blocking with a suicide run, dealing no damage I don't see as a good long term strategy, what is your opponent doing with the other 150 points in their army while you sacrifice 15 that won't do anything to their 50 point unit? I don't know how you've smoked any Rune Golems with a carrion lancer, but I've certainly lost PLENTY of carrion lancers to rune golems. I've lost Ardus to a single Rune Golem. If I sent a carrion lancer alone against a hero or a rune golem, I'm sacrificing it. With no rerolls or brutal there are just too many sides on those dice that result in not breaking armor. If the Golem gets just 2 hits, they have a guaranteed wound, possibly two based on the runes. Ok, so you're throwing in extra units to make the carrion lancer good. Do you know how powerful a Rune golem is when Lord hawthorne is attacking the same unit? What about Kari raining down fury? What about Ravos paired with anything? Here's what you're overlooking with your idea though, let's say I bring 5 units, and you bring 5 units, and I have 2 of my units attacking one of your units so they can "synergize" to deal damage, who is going to win? You have 5 different attacks, I get 4 because 2 of my units have to work together to make a complete unit. I just doubled how much I spent on 1 effective unit, and got half as many units as you did for your cost. Let's not forget that in your situation, we have the archers and carrion lancer attacking the same rune golem, who also attacks at initiative 5. He can rally off the blight with his white rally modifier (clearing all of the blight), or he can kill the carrion lancer making the blight meaningless, or attack before both units, due to which round it is, and kill off the carrion lancer before the archers get to fire a shot. You also mentioned clumping the carrion lancer next to ardus, but the problem is, just how tight of a space do you keep the archers, the carrion lancer, and Ardus so that you can make that combo actually work? Eventually you're going to start tripping over the units, blocking line of sight, performing panic tests on your own units that are engaged, all for mortal strikes that are worth less than actual wounds if you face anything besides a hero or select units that have high defensive values. Since, with Ardus, every hit is worth 2 points of damage, the unit HAS to have defense of 2 or higher just to break even with the trade off. If Ardus or a 2x1 or bigger Carrion lancer is facing infantry, or archers, or pretty much all of the Uthuk, the mortal strike is worth less than a hit. With Carrion lancers, if you're looking at the 3x2 then the mortal strike has to be towards a unit with at least 3 defense to break even. What I've faced with Waiqar is if you clump your units and move them forward so the lancers can benefit from the archers, and ardus can benefit from the archers and the carrion lancers, then your opponent has domination of the field. They either go after objectives, or they sneak around behind the clump and hit the archers who are now unguarded. Eventually you leave a hole if 3 of your units are going after one of your opponents units. If even the smallest Oathsworn unit gets behind the archers and hits them for a melee engagement, your archers are toast, Ardus loses blight, and the carrion lancers have no way to spend blight.
  19. IF reanimates fill 3 units per turn (max limit), you still have to realize that all a 2x1 would be adding is rerolls of a single die, no threat, no value, plus they would be missing out on MASSIVE upgrades. Likely they will be adding roughly a single unit per turn, maybe 2. Plus a 2x1 could get wrecked so easily and once it got down to a single tray the threat would be null. A 2x1 gets no champion slot, no training (goodbye lingering dead), no siege unit, I just can't imagine a player being successful with 6 sets of 2x1 reanimates with the limit of upgrades. Latari get Hunters Guile to roll a white and blue and can move out of attack range with their extra surges, Daqan gets protected, access to mortal strikes, and an armor increase with visored helms, or access to defense lowering and another mortal strike with Piercing strike. Carrion lancers, by themselves, are worthless. A single tray can't break armor for a Rune Golem with many of their hits. Literally their sweet dial means... they crash into stuff to stop them from doing other things, but then they die. That's not great. How much would you pay for a unit that will move into a unit at a fast speed, but then die during the next attack because they won't be able to do anything? People keep claiming that the rally at initiative 3 followed by a speed 3 move is great, except you waste your entire attack with the unit, and due to the initiative 5 melee attack they will likely die to whatever they are engaged with. A stand alone tray can get (perfect hit) 5 damage, with no rerolls and no brutal, meaning it's more likely 2-3 hits, the same single tray Rune Golem has natural defense of 4 and can hit with Brutal an average of 4, perfect situation 12, for a single tray. Rune Golem can move speed 4 at initiative 4, has a white reform modifier (which is HUGE considering the Lancer has to choose to ONLY reform as the action, and then increase defense. There are NO white modifiers for the carrion lancer), has a white rally modifier, can increase defense by 1-2 (not just 1). I understand that the Rune Golem can't perform a wheel or turn, but with the white reform, put your unit facing however you want EVERY TIME IT MOVES. The death knights are cool, but they shouldn't go after ANY unit with a. high number of wounds, b. individual units (such as archers or infantry) because it's a waste of death's grasp. Basically it's a hero killer. NOW... I love the death knights so I'm not going to slam them. I might have to have an army of death knights at some time. Plus the models are super sweet looking. I just really wish that the Maro hero upgrade could have been able to be used with the death knights. As is, that's a terrible pairing, huge waste, very little advantage. @Bhelliom you did make some great points, I might try the Raven guy in my archers in the future, that sounds fun. I PROBABLY would be fine if the Carrion Lancer ONLY got the skill changed to blight engaged units, I would just like the precise or brutal add on to make them feel like a threat to units, instead of just more of a blight tower.
  20. I think this is how I have felt overall with Waiqar. I feel they are a defensive faction, but not offensive. The issue is currently since there are so many offensive options, you can't just build a single defensive option that is effective. So much of your response is exactly what brought up my original post, Waiqar isn't the movement team, they aren't the damage team, they aren't the ranged team, they feel like they are a stretched thin team. I want to play a team where I look at what I WANT TO DO, not which team do I want to be strong against. Playing defensively isn't fun all of the time, I don't feel like I see the potential of bringing a team where my opponent is questioning how they are going to answer what I'm bringing. Now, honestly, I have to disagree with the reanimates being the weakest compared to all of the factions, simply because they roll 2 red dice. None of the other factions roll 2 red dice, and considering the red dice has a double hit side, I don't really see them as the worst. Now, their speed, modifiers, etc, may weaken them, but I don't see them as the worst. Right now, if I want to bring a new player to the game, what I say is this: Latari is for if you like agility teams, they dominate the movement, Uthuk if you just want to play a team that hits hard and deals tons of damage, they are truly and aggro team, Daqan is a great team for defensive solutions and pretty all around decent in all aspects, Waiqar... they look cool, they're undead, but I don't know their theme. Blight? Only 2 units use blight (ardus doesn't count because he just takes advantage of whatever), Reanimation? that's only the reanimates infantry and IF you decide to bring Maro that's 2 units. Ranged, only 2 units have ranged options (if you include Maro). Panic? no, Uthuk takes better advantage of that. No other banes from Waiqar, Stun is the Daqan bane of choice and Immobilize is the Latari's. Waiqar doesn't do anything specifically magically weird, yes deathcaller is cool, if you get it to trigger and IF the unit is unengaged or blighted, they don't hit hard, they don't move fast, they can only use Deaths Grasp with a single unit on the field, and no other units take advantage of it while it's applied... Here's what I think: Reanimates should naturally add trays to the unit based on the runes. It's only 1-3 units anyway, if they are reanimating into new trays it all of the sudden becomes a bigger threat to other factions. Rules have already decided those extra trays won't add points so that isn't an issue. Archers should also have reanimate, because otherwise they're just not as good as the other archers for other factions, and why wouldn't they have that ability? Carrion Lancers should be able to blight engaged units. They should also get either precise or brutal considering Rune Golems get 2 red dice and brutal 1-2, and Scions are cheaper AND get the option of a ranged or melee attack. Ardus should come with Precise naturally. His ability to steal surge abilities should be up to range 5. His cost is so high already, and considering how powerful Ravos is, I think it's ok to have dangerous and powerful heroes. You give me those changes and I think Waiqar starts to fall in line with the other teams. Reanimates and reanimate archers have the threat of your opponent needing to close in fast, Carrion Lancers are actually powerful on their own and can use blight more often, and ardus becomes a hero that has potential.
  21. My list I've been running (and winning with) Ardus -Ancient tech Archers -2x1 -Wind rune -Combat Ingenuity Death Knights -2x1 -Obcasium Gauntlet Reanimates -2x2 -Ankaur Maro Reanimates - 3x2 -Mistlands Sab -Support Car Lancer -Raven-Stand Bear -Tact Drum -Ling Dead I run this list. Protect the archers and the block that has Maro with Ardus and the Death Knights. Use the maro block to add trays of archers and reanimates to the 3x2 block, priority to whoever is threatened first, or has potential to do damage. Mist land saboteur used by removing temper steel, moment of inspiration, etc. if you dial in the skill you can either blight if not engaged or remove an upgrade if you are. I find that way more helpful than an extra panic (personally) on the reanimate dial.
  22. I think you made some great points, but in the end I think that it's not like they are preschoolers playing against Pro teams, it's just it feels like the C-team playing against Varsity right now. Yes you may get some wins because of things the opponent doesn't expect, but once your toolbox is revealed, you're pretty easy to figure out, and underpowered due to no secrets. Vorun'Thul looks interesting... but I feel like he will just be avoided by units that will seriously suffer from him, and engaged by units that can take a hit and then hit back harder. We'll see, I will definitely get him, but I'm not expecting him to change the game state by himself. Now... Giving Ardus a +1 to his brutal at the cost of a surge if Vorun'Thul and Ardus are close... that might be fun... but also still very expensive.
  23. San Antonio I don't think so much reflects the strength of Waiqar. The winning Waiqar player got a bye round 1, then only won 2 games, whereas the second place player, Latari, Played and won 3 games. The difference was round three where it was Waiqar vs Waiqar and there was a total domination leading to a 10-1 point spread. Does this show the power of Waiqar or the weakness, or both? The Latari second place player never played the person who took first, and the Waiqar player never played a Latari or Uthuk player. Winning 2 games, one against the same faction, doesn't show strength (IMO) As far as the Carolina regionals, I don't see the report so I don't know how to respond. As far as Bhellioms report, I could take it or leave it honestly, not saying anything about his opinion or his friend's capability, maybe we should consider if Bhelliom himself believes he won based on his team and skill. Maybe Daqan isn't really the strongest, just the players that showed up aren't truly a good representation of the national quality of players? Saying that someone who didn't show up and didn't play against the other players would have won... says more about the people who did show up than the people who didn't. Now, please don't take that as a knock to either Bhelliom or his friend, I think this community is excellent and I really appreciate the players, but with as many reports as there are out there, the opinions on the Waiqar heroes from all of the current reviewers, with how world's went last year and how nationals did actually represent this year, with how Uthuk players are dominating, even new ones, with how the Carolina players specifically rearranged their teams solely to deal with Uthuk teams... That shows the opinion of current players that Uthuk is powerful. Surprised honestly that Waiqar was chosen to deal with Uthuk though, but not super surprising since I can see the relationship between themes of the teams, it would make sense that players would have those 2 teams. Deathknights are a one trick pony for a high cost. Ignoring a mortal strike is good, if the unit is dealing a mortal strike. Ravos doesn't, and field units don't roll white dice. They are also expensive currently. The are susceptible to ranged attacks, can't field Maro without serious repercussions, and have no surge ability for Ardus to exploit. Obcasium's Gauntlet can only be placed on a single unit. The Lancers are good, but that's one unit that costs 80 points by itself, and it's only going to get a chance to hit 1 unit in melee range only, at initiative 5. I'll give you the point for this one specific unit, but it's not without flaws. Deathcaller relies on blight, relies on line of sight, and relies on the unit being able to suffer wounds, and it's 1-2 wounds. Maro can get destroyed due to his late ranged attack and low low defense, plus he's super expensive again at that point. Point is, all of these things would be available much cheaper and with less down sides for other factions.
×
×
  • Create New...